SpindleWorks.com - reformed christian resources

The Synod of Dordt - Professor Herman Hanko

Professor Herman Hanko, Emeritus
Professor of Church History and New Testament Studies Protestant Theological
Seminary, Grand Rapids Michigan USA.
Repoduced herewith in electronic format by permission from the British
Reformed Journal. First Published in the "Beacon Lights."

Historical Introduction

When
the Calvinistic Reformation came to the Netherlands, there were many priests
and monks who left the Romish Church and were given ministerial status in
the Reformed Church. Some of these were good men who broke with Rome under
deep convictions of the truth. Many were evil men who, with wet fingers held
high in the ecclesiastical winds that blew, saw that the power of Rome was
broken in the Netherlands. They were determined to abandon a sinking ship.
For personal reasons they came to the side of the Reformation. But they carried
with them the errors of Rome-the doctrine of works righteousness and the heresy
of semi-pelagianism. They proved fertile soil for the seeds of Arminianism.
Besides, there were leaders in the Church (Coornhert, for example) who opposed
the doctrine of predestination and who wanted only a very general creed such
as the Apostolic Confession to serve as the confessional basis of the Church.
It was Arminius though, who united all the erring elements in the Church into
one party which became a power to reckon with in the defense of the faith.

Arminius
was born in the town of Oudewater in 1560. Very early in life he was left
fatherless but two Reformed ministers sponsored his education in the Academy
of Leiden. Finishing his education here at the age of 21, he was sent to study
in the University of Geneva, sponsored by a merchant's guild from Amsterdam.
The University of Geneva was famous throughout the continent of Europe as
the center of Reformed studies. It was founded by John Calvin himself and
was, after the death of Calvin, under the administration of Theodore Beza,
a staunch defender of Calvin's views. It was at Geneva that Arminius met Uitenbogaert
who became his close friend and, who was destined to play such a large role
in the Arminian struggle back in the Netherlands. We shall meet him again.
After a brief trip to Italy, Arminius returned to Geneva for a short time
then came back to his homeland where
he passed his classical examination and was admitted to the ministry of the
gospel by unanimous vote.

Under
the wise and inscrutable providence of God three events took place which
soon brought the views of Arminius into the open.

The
first of these events really served to strengthen Arminius in heretical
views that he had begun to develop already while in Geneva. Coornhert had
engaged for some time in agitation against the doctrine of election and
Arminius was asked to refute these views for the benefit of the churches.
In his studies which he made prior to his refutation he came to the conclusion
that he was unable to refute the views of Coornhert because he was himself
becoming more and more convinced that they were true. This startling fact
he did not make public.

The
second of these events was the fruit of the preaching of Arminius
in his congregation in Amsterdam. He was busy with a series of sermons on
the book of Romans. From the beginning of the book, his heretical views
occasionally cropped up, but it was emphatically in his sermons on Romans
9 that his congregation noticed his denial of the Reformed and Scriptural
view of sovereign predestination. His congregation was alarmed. And especially
his fellow minister, Plancius, opposed his views and combatted the evil
doctrines he was developing.

The
third of these events is very strange. In the midst of all the troubles
in Amsterdam, Arminius was appointed professor of theology in the University
of Leiden. How it was ever possible for Reformed men to agree to the appointment
of this man who was under suspicion in Amsterdam remains partly a mystery.

However,
there were two factors that had bearing on the matter. On the one hand, the
university was not under the control of the Church, but rather under the control
of the State. The relation between the Church and the State was (and is today)
different in the Netherlands than it is in the USA, for instance. Strictly
speaking the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands were not a "State Church."
Nevertheless, the State did have a certain amount of control over the Church.
The Reformed Churches existed under the favor and blessing of the State; the
State supported the Church financially and the State had much to say about
such questions of Church polity as the calling of ministers, the appointment
of professors, the convening of broader ecclesiastical assemblies, etc. At
the time when (and up to the time of the meeting of the Synod of Dordt) the
State was in the hands of men who favored Arminianism, or at least did not
think the entire matter of Arminius' heresy was sufficiently important to
create trouble about it in the Church. The result was that Arminius was appointed
with the blessing of the State.

On the
other hand, Arminius himself was a very crafty man. While he was teaching
his views whenever the opportunity presented itself, he was also covering
up his views and staunchly insisting that he was indeed Reformed. He succeeded
for the most part in quieting the fears of those who did not trust him. And
so the heretic from Amsterdam gained the important chair of theology in the
University of Leiden. The year was 1602.

It is
not difficult to imagine what a splendid opportunity this furnished Arminius
for the spreading of his views throughout the Church. There is no more strategic
place to influence others than a theological school. Here were instructed
the ministers of the gospel, the teachers of the schools, the leaders of the
Church. Here in the classroom of theology came those who were to carry on
the defense of the faith in the years ahead. Here Arminius made good use of
his opportunities and his position to spread the leaven of heresy throughout
the Church.

He had
one strong and tireless opponent. Gomarus was his name. He also taught in
the University. And this staunch and outspoken man never ceased to combat
the evil which Arminius developed and taught. But Arminius had the protection
and blessing of the State that favored him. He had a way that left others
with the impression that he was earnestly seeking the truth. He again and
again persuaded the authorities (when he was called on the carpet for his
views) that there was no- cause for alarm. And his disciples went forth thoroughly
imbibed with his views to preach and teach them over the whole land.

If he
could not with safety teach his views in the University, he retired to the
seclusion of his home. Here he gathered select groups of his students to discuss
with them what he believed. Here he used his charming ways to make them into
his ardent defenders.

In 1609
Arminius became sick and died. But his cause continued. Especially his good
friend Uitenbogaert carried on the heresies which Arminius developed. And
a party was organized within the Reformed Churches called the Remonstrants,
and dedicated to the cause of establishing the heresy of Arminianism as
the official doctrine of the church.

It is
difficult to write an obituary of Arminius - except that there have always
been many like him in the history of the Church. He was was a brilliant scholar,
a thoroughly educated man, a student who pursued his studies even in the parsonage.
He was a man of pleasing personality, not difficult to get along with, easily
making friends, refined in manners, elegant in appearance, a popular teacher
who could make a lasting impression on the minds and hearts of his students.
He was a gifted preacher, a good pastor, easily ensuring the favor of those
to whom he ministered. Especially this was true if we compare him with Gomarus,
his opponent in the University. Gomarus was everything that Arminius was not.
He was a stern man, not given to smiling, often crude and gruff, holding people
at arm's length, not easy to know, difficult to "come close to," not always
able to hold his temper. When he opposed Arminius his voice thundered with
wrath, his language was the language of a man who was solely interested in
the truth without any concern for what people thought of him or what the reactions
would be in the minds of his audience. Yet he was fearless and unbending,
wholly dedicated to the cause of the Church of Christ.

Besides,
Arminius was crafty. He could play with words, speak out of both sides of his
mouth, promote his views with subtlety and in an all but unnoticed way. He
always tried to leave the impression that he stood for the Reformed faith
and on the basis of the Reformed Confessions, while all the time he carried
his views in his pocket. He tried to smuggle his heresy into the Church under
the guise of developing the Reformed faith. He tried to lull the people into
spiritual slumber the better to feed them the poison of his errors. He worked
"under the table," behind people's backs, dealing in treachery and deceit
to accomplish his ends.

And
thus it is with many a heretic. They are not satisfied with merely defending
their views and if they are found not to be in harmony with the views of the
Church to which they belong, they leave for other places. They are always
insistent on dragging with them as many people as they can, making every effort
to destroy the Church before finally they are cast out. This had happened
before in the history of the early Church when Pelagius fought with Augustine.
This has happened since the time of Dordt. This will happen again. And the
reason is that behind heresy is the devil who uses heresy to try, if possible,
to destroy the Church of Christ.

Arminius
was dead. But this did not mean that his heresy had died with him. His influence
had been too extensive. His doctrines had been sown in the hearts of too many
men. His departure did not alter appreciably the course of Arminianism in
the Netherlands. Those who had followed him in these teachings soon organized
into a party known as the "Remonstrants. " This well-organized party
within the Reformed Churches had considerable influence on the doctrine and
faith of the Churches even though the leader was gone. This group came together
in the city of Gouda in 1610 to draw up a formulation of their views.

However,
the claim of these Remonstrants was that they did not intend to introduce
into the Church any new doctrines. Nor did they want to leave the impression
that they were critical of the Confessions; they stoutly insisted that they
were deep lovers of the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. Rather
they wanted the Churches to believe that these formulations which they drew
up were really only certain remarks and observations which they had to make
concerning the Confessions. Nevertheless, the fact is that this document struck
at the very heart of the Reformed faith. If not refuted, it would mean the
death-blow to Calvinism in the Low Countries. We quote this document on ensuing
pages of this article.

To refute
this document, however, seemed to be impossible. It required the convocation
of a Synod. And a Synod was very difficult to call in those days, because
it could not be called without the permission of the government.

There
were those men, staunch defenders of the Reformed faith, who had long pleaded
for a Synod to settle this matter of the Arminian controversy. But their pleas
were ignored. The government was controlled by a man named Oldenbarneveldt
who was openly and without apology a friend of the Arminians. He refused to
grant permission to convene a Synod for fear that his friends would be condemned.
Rather he insisted that both varying views within the Churches be discussed
in a series
of conferences. But these conferences helped nothing except to give to the
Remonstrants additional opportunity to make propaganda for their views while
they found shelter beneath the benevolent wing of the State.

It is
a fundamental principle of all history that God is sovereign and Lord of all
that takes place in the world. History is the work of God by means of which
He causes His eternal counsel to be revealed in time. But this truth has,
among other things, one important implication. The main part of history is
always the history of the Church of Jesus Christ. It is true, of course, that
the world ignores this fact. They claim that they make history, that what
they do is all that counts. But no matter how small the "7000" may be who
belong to the Church (especially in comparison with the millions in the world),
the Church constitutes the important part of all history. Any history book
that ignores this fact is not a history book at all. The history of wicked
men therefore must serve the purpose of the Church of Christ. Pharaoh brought
Israel into slavery that deliverance might be a picture of the salvation of
the Church through God's power. Caesar Augustus decreed that all the world
should be taxed so that Christ could be born in Bethlehem. Pilate condemned
Christ to death so that the cross might be atonement for the sins of the elect.
Charles V was so busily engaged with the problems of his empire that Luther
was left undisturbed by this tyrant (who favored the Roman Catholic Church)
so that the Reformation was not squelched in its inception. The same is true
of the history of the Netherlands in these early years of the 17th century
just prior to the great Synod of Dordrecht.

To all
appearances it seemed as if the Armenian movement was to gain a complete victory
in the Reformed Churches. The hands of the faithful were tied. Things were
rapidly deteriorating. The cause of the Reformation in the Low Countries seemed
to be lost. The government held tight check on the faithful. to prevent them
from condemning officially the heresy of Jacobus Arminius.

But
suddenly things changed. In a lightning coup d'etat Prince Mauritz overthrew
the existing government, clapped Oldenbarneveldt in irons, took over the reigns
of government and instituted a state sympathetic to the Reformed Churches.
(Oldenbarneveldt was later tried and killed for treason. Whether his death
was just or not remains a question. But, strangely, I have heard men of Reformed
persuasion defend him as a champion of the truth.)

Now
things moved swiftly. Although no national Synod had been held for many years,
quickly one was now called. Allowing only sufficient time for the provincial
Synods to meet to elect delegates, the great Synod of Dordrecht was called
together to consider the allimportant question of this Armenian heresy.

It convened
in September of 1618.

Who
were those who stood in the line of Calvin? Could the Armenians prove their
claim that they were the ones? Was it true that they were intent only on developing
the Reformed faith, as they claimed? Or was it rather true, as the leaders
of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands maintained, that their views were
destructive
of Calvinism? And, that they had attempted, be it in a devious and crafty
way, to destroy the truth of God's Word? We will let the Arminians speak for
themselves.

You
recall that in 1610 the Arminians (who were at this time known as Remonstrants)
had met in the city of Gouda to formulate their views. The product of this
meeting was a document known as the five points of the Remonstrants. In these
five articles, they commented on the truths of sovereign predestination, the
total depravity of man, the atonement of Christ, the work of salvation in
the hearts of the elect, and the perseverance of the saints.

You
will not dispute the fact that these five doctrines of the Reformed faith
are all the cardinal doctrines. The Arminians were not speaking of rather
minor points (if one can properly speak of minor points of the Word of God)
of the truth. They were discussing the towering doctrines of Scripture, the
foundations of the Christian faith. They were not interested in developing
points on which the Church had not spoken before this time. They were formulating
opinions on questions on which the Church had for many centuries maintained
specific positions. They were calling attention to questions on which Calvin
had written extensively.

Calvin
had taught (in keeping with the views of St. Augustine) that God sovereignly
determined in His eternal counsel by the decree of predestination the ultimate
destination of all men, angels and devils. Calvin had taught that this predestination
(both election and reprobation) was altogether the sovereign determination
of God, and that it was not based on any other consideration, e.g., the works
of men. He did not elect those who He knew would do good works. Nor did God
reprobate those who He knew would sin. He sovereignty chose His own. He sovereignty
rejected the rest. What did the Arminians say about this crucial question?
The first article of their Formulation made in Gouda reads:

"That
God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ His Son, before
the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of a fallen, sinful race
of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake and through Christ, those who,
through the grace of the Holy Ghost shall believe on this his Son Jesus,
and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace,
even to the end, and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving
in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ according
to the word of the gospel in John 3:36: `He that believeth on the Son hath
everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall notsee life; but
the wrath of God abideth on him,' and according to other passages of Scripture
also."

It is
a good question whether there are very many today who would be able to detect
the error in this point. In fact one does not find it at all uncommon to read
and hear people of Reformed persuasion defend these very views. This is not
only due to the fact that the Arminians were very subtle in stating their
position (admittedly this is true), but it is also due to the fact that there
is terrible ignorance in the

Church
world today. The fact is that the above article does not maintain that God
sovereignly determines who are elect and who are reprobate. It teaches the
very opposite. It teaches that God chose those to be His elect who would believe
on His Son Jesus and who would persevere in this faith and obedience of faith
to the end. Thus it makes man's faith to be the condition of his election,
and his perseverance in faith is the condition for his remaining elect. This
has been called conditional predestination, and so it is.

This
may seem as a trivial point to debate, but most emphatically it is not. And
the Arminians were fully aware of the importance of this position. If it would
be adopted (although Calvin had taught quite the opposite) it would open the
flood gates to the view that man of himself can believe. This, in fact, was
precisely what happened, man does not believe because he is elect; he is elect
because he believes. The Arminians may say that he believes only by grace,
but this is more of that terrible subterfuge with which they tried to make
their views sound good. The point had to be answered or the Reformed faith
was lost forever. It was answered beautifully and concisely in the first chapter
of the Canons of Dordt. Calvin had taught that the death of Christ on the
cross was only for the elect. He taught without any doubt that the blessings
which Christ merited for the elect were for them alone. He took away their
sins by His blood and earned for them alone eternal life through His obedience.
And all this was rooted in a love of God which was towards the elect only.
The reprobate were, in an absolute sense, excluded from all this. Did the
Arminians teach this? Let them speak for themselves. Their second article
reads:

"That,
agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for
all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his
death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins, yet that no
one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according
to the word of the Gospel of John 3.16: `God so loved the world that he
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life.' And in the First Epistle of John 2:2:
`And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also
for the sins of the whole world."'

It seems
as if the Arminians become bolder here, for they say very clearly that they
are firmly convinced that Christ died for every single man and that He merited
His blessings for everyone that ever lived. It is true that they add that
only the believers ever receive this forgiveness, but the inescapable conclusion
is that Christ died for many that are not saved. And the only reason why they
are not saved is that they do not, by their own will, agree to believe on
Christ. Really the Arminians, having written Article I had to write Article
II. They are so logically related that the one necessarily follows from the
other.

But the
cross is thereby destroyed. Christ cannot save those for whom He died.

This
had to be answered. The Canons answered this in the second chapter. Calvin
had taught (and in this respect also he simply repeated what Augustine

before
him had maintained) that man is totally depraved. He could not do any good
in the sight of God at all. The fall had robbed him of every ability to fulfill
in any respect the law of God. He was sold under sin and thoroughly corrupt.
He was (and is) a foul fountain spueing forth a dirty stream of sin.

And
most important of all, because of this total depravity, he can do nothing
to save himself. The Arminians had something to say about this too. Only,
what they had to say sounds very good. They thought evidently, that at this
point they had better hew to the Reformed line lest they arouse undue suspicion.
They forgot that they already implied (and later in the articles do state)
that man can of himself exercise his own free will. They speak very strongly,
of total depravity.

Their
third article reads:

"That
man has not saving faith of himself, nor of the energy of his free will,
inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself
neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving
Faith eminently is), but that it is needful that he be born again of God
in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination,
or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think,
will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John
15:5: `Without me ye can do nothing."'

They
did not mean this, of course, it was a camouflage. It is not at all unusual
to hear the same things in our days. Oftentimes, Christian people are convinced
that a man is sincerely interested in the truth because, although he may bring
false doctrine, he nevertheless at the same time speaks the language of Reformed
believers. He talks both ways. We must beware of this. It is intended to deceive.
There is an ` old Dutch proverb which, freely translated, says, "The devil
never comes in wooden shoes, but always in slippers. " Calvin had taught
that the work of salvation was by grace alone. It was a work of God Who accomplished
it all through His Spirit. It was performed in the heart of man as God's work,
not man's. God not only chooses those whom He saves, He also comes into the
hearts of these elect and redeemed people whom He loves, and saves them by
His power and His grace. The only possibility of salvation in any sense is
the work of God.

In addition.
to this, Calvin taught that when God comes into the hearts of His people,
He comes irresistibly. There is no man who can resist this work of God. He
may hate God, rebel against the truth, be a bitter enemy of the Church, walk
in the deepest paths of sin; but he cannot resist God. When God works salvation,
he is helpless in God's hand. Those whom God wants to save are actually saved.
In this teaching Calvin followed closely the doctrine of St. Augustine who
lived many centuries before him. And he followed in the footsteps of Martin
Luther, his contemporary and fellow-reformer, who taught this especially in
his book, The Bondage of the Will. It seemed at first as if the Arminians
agreed on this point. In their fourth article they wrote:

"That
this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all
good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient
or assisting, awakening, following and co-operative grace, can neither think,
will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil, that all good
deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grad
of God in Christ."

There
isn't anyone who would criticize what is taught here, least of all the leaders
in the Netherlands who met at the Synod of Dordrecht. This is good Reformed
doctrine. Calvin would have said, "Amen." And we have no criticism to make
of this either. But, the trouble is that this is not the whole article. As
so often happens, men who are determined to bring evil doctrine into the Church,
try to sound as Reformed and Scriptural as they can. They only come with their
evil doctrines by the back door. And so the rest of this article reads quite
differently from the first part:

"But
as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible,
inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy
Ghost. Acts. vii, and elsewhere in many places."

So,
this is after all what they wanted. Salvation is by grace they say. They wouldn't
want you to think that they deny it. But, this grace was resistible. You don't
have to take it if you prefer not to. It only comes to you as an offer of
God. You can reject it, and it will then never be yours. Even if God wants
to save you, you don't have to be saved if it is your choice to remain in
your fallen state.

And,
of course, it follows from this (and this was and is also consistent Arminian
theology) that grace can only come to you and be your salvation if you accept
it. You must want it. You must agree to receive the Holy Spirit. You must
be willing. Only then can you actually be saved.

So salvation
is dependent upon the will of man. He must make the first
advance towards God. He must initiate this work in his heart. Else it is all
hopeless
after all. Christ died for such a man, but it makes no difference, he is not
saved until
he agrees to salvation. And.... only this decision of a man will result in
his election
or reprobation - depending on what decision he makes. If he does agree, well,
then
he becomes elect. He may not agree however. The rejection of God's willing
grace
makes him a reprobate.

Our
fathers knew this was not the truth of Calvin-and not the truth of Scripture.
They severely condemned this doctrine in the third chapter of the Canons.

It follows
from all these cardinal doctrines (sovereign predestination, limited atonement,
total depravity, irresistible grace) that when God saves His people for whom
Christ died, that they are saved not only in this life, but they are also
brought safely into heaven to enjoy the blessings of salvation in the hearts
of His people. He maintains this work faithfully. He keeps His people in the
midst of temptation from falling away. He protects them and defends them from
the attacks of persecution.

He makes
it impossible for their evil flesh to win over them throughout all their life.
Once saved, saved forever. Calvin saw this truth in Scripture and taught it.
But the Arminians (quite naturally) wanted nothing of it.

In their
last article they said:

"That
those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby
become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to
strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the
victory, it being well understood that it is even through the assisting
grace
of the Holy Ghost, and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit
in
all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for
the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from
falling so that they, by no craft or power, of Satan,, can be misled nor
plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, John x.28.
`Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.' But whether they are
capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of
their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of
turning
away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience,
of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly
determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with
the full persuasion of our minds."

There
are two points which the Arminians make. The first point is that a person
who is once saved is quite capable of falling away so that after all, he goes
to hell. He can return again to the evil world. He can turn away from the
truth of Scripture which once was his. He can lose a good conscience which
he once possessed. He can become devoid of grace. There is every possibility
of this happening. His salvation is like a fortune gained or lost on the stock
market depending on the whims of investors. It is true that the Arminians
did not really state this as their position. They merely ask a question. They
suggest the possibility that this might be true, but they are willing they
say, to withhold final judgment of this question. Only, they want to be shown
that Scripture teaches the opposite. Nevertheless, it was plainly a deceitful
way of sowing seeds of doubt about the perseverance of the saints in the minds
of the faithful.

Secondly,
they insist (and they do this in a very emphatic way) that, if it is true
that a man does succeed in remaining a believer and does safely reach heaven,
it is only because he takes hold of the hand that Christ extends to him. If
he does not fall away, it is only because he is ready for the conflict, really
wants Christ's help and remains at all times active. In other words, if it
is true that you find anywhere a believer once in a while who does remain
faithful to the end, this is his own work, and not God's work in him. He needs
some help, it is true. But it remains his work nonetheless. God's help becomes
the truck driver who brings ammunition to the soldier on the front line.

This
error was specifically answered in the last chapter of the Canons. The Church
was threatened in those days. A blow had been struck at the very foundation
of the faith of the gospel. These are cardinal doctrines that came under attack.
They are the fundamentals of Scripture. They are basic because they are necessary
to maintain the glory of God. Soli Deo Gloria-thiswas Calvin's theme.
But the Arminians were trying hard to steal this glory from God and give some
of it to man. It may not be done. Our fathers saw to it that it was not done.
We can do no less today. "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that
not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: Not of works, (and this is after
all the
question) lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9.

We are
now ready to discuss the Synod of Dordrecht itself. You will recall that,
through the overthrow of the government of Oldenbarneveldt in the Netherlands
by Prince Mauritz, a government sympathetic to the Reformed cause had come
into power. This government convened the Synod that met in the city of Dordrecht
and dealt with the problem of Arminianism.

The
Synod began its meetings on November 13th, 1618 and met until May
9th, 1619. In all, 154 sessions were held, although the Synod dealt with
considerably more than the error of Arminianism. The first month of the Synod
(until December 6, 1618) was occupied with other business. It was toward the
end of April in 1619 that the Arminian controversy was finally settled by
the adoption of our present Canons of Dordt.,

The Delegates at the Synod

The
Synod was not, as is sometimes supposed, simply a "Dutch" Synod. There were
delegates present at the Synod from practically all the Calvinistic Churches
of the continent of Europe. It is true that these foreign delegates did not
have a deciding vote at the Synod (their vote was more advisory), but the
fact remains that they did a tremendous amount of work, entered freely into
all the discussions, served on the committees of study, composed their own
written opinions about the articles of the Arminians and the Canons themselves,
and even signed these Canons when they were finally adopted.

There
were, in all, 57 delegates from the Netherlands Churches. Thirty-four of these
were ministers, 18 were elders, and five were professors from the Reformed
Universities and Seminaries in the Netherlands.

Among
the professors we ought to take special notice of Gomarus. He was the man
that had opposed Arminius for many years while they were both professors at
the University of Leiden. He had long argued for the convocation of just such
a Synod as now was meeting to treat the Arminian heresy. He had seen from
personal contact with Arminius and his followers, the terrible danger of these
views. It was with deep thanksgiving, no doubt, that this venerable defender
of the faith now saw the Synod convened which could treat the errors of Arminius
and his followers and settle the terrible controversies that were raging in
the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands.

There
were 27 foreign delegates which came to the Synod from all parts of the continentGreat
Britain, the Palatinate (where the Heidelberg Catechism had been written),
Hessia, Switzerland, Wettersaw, Geneva, Bremen and Emden. The delegates of
France could not attend although they had been invited. They were refused
permission to leave their land by the French government. Another staunch defender
of the faith, Dr. Paraeus who was professor of theology in the University
of Heidelberg, also could not come because of the infirmities of old age.
But he did send to the Synod a written opinion of the five articles of the
Arminians which agreed essentially with the position that was finally adopted
by the Synod in its Canons.

All
of these men were leaders in the Reformed and Calvinistic Reformation. They
were the theologians, the scholars, the brilliant lights of the Post-Reformation
period. They represented Calvinism at its purest and had a hand in developing
the great principles of the Genevan Reformer in the Century following the
Reformation. Many of them had studied in the centres of Reformed and Calvinistic
thought-the University of Heidelberg in the Palatinate where Ursinus and Olevianus
had taught, and in the University of Geneva founded by Calvin and administered
later by Calvin's successor, Theodore Beza.

There
were also present at the Synod representatives of the government. This was
due to the unique relation between Church and State that existed in the Netherlands
which we have discussed before. The State could convene a Synod, and all the
decisions of the Synod were also approved by these governmental representatives.
The former government of Oldenbarneveldt would never have approved of what
the Synod did, for Oldenbarneveldt and his government had always been sympathetic
towards the Arminians. But the present government of Mauritz favored the Reformed
cause, and the Synod had no trouble in its work from the government's delegates.

Finally,
you may perhaps wonder why the Arminians are not listed above as also being
present at the Synod. The fact of the matter is that they were there. But,
in the first place, they were only there from December 6, 1618 (when
they were invited to come) until they were dismissed on January 14th, 1619.
When the Synod finally got to work in the formulation of the Canons, the
Arminians were gone. In the second place, the Arminians never had a vote on
the Synod. This was due to the Church Polity then in effect. They were, prior
to the convocation of the Synod, indicted for heresy, and the Synod was called
to pass judgment on this indictment. They could be present to defend their
views and state their objections to the Synod's actions, but they could not
vote in their own case and in the proceedings that dealt with their matter.

However,
we must not be left with the impression that the Synod simply condemned them
without a hearing. They were given abundant opportunity to defend themselves,
to prove, if they could, that their views were in harmony with Scripture,
to point out what they considered to be errors in the Synod's actions. In
fact, they were
given so much opportunity to do this that even the foreign delegates, who
generally knew very little or nothing about the Arminian controversy, concluded
that Synod had exhausted a most remarkable patience in dealing with them.
Not only this, but there were always delegates on the Synod who favored to
a greater or a lesser degree the position that the Arminians had taken. This
was especially true of some of the delegates from England and Emden. Thus,
in one way or another, the position of the Arminians was represented on the
Synod throughout the entire proceedings. This is important to emphasize because
those who object to the Canons of Dordrecht sometimes make the charge that
the Canons are not very important because they were adopted by a "straw Synod"
or a "packed Synod" that allowed no other views to be entertained but the
views of a minority who were determined to foist their minority position on
the Churches. This is a slanderous charge and does grave injustice to the
fathers who composed this important and beautiful confession.

Finally,
it ought to be remarked that the foreign delegates did not speak for the Churches
they represented. They were not at the Synod as representatives of the Reformed
Churches in their particular countries. They were merely called in to help
the Netherlands Churches and to serve them with advice. And, even though they
later signed the Canons, they did not do this as official representatives
of their Churches in order to make the Canons binding also upon them.

The
Proceedings of the Synod

We may
turn now toa brief description of the actual proceedings of this Synod.
We have already noticed that the time between November 13th and December 6th
was taken up in other business.

Before
the Arminians were actually called to appear on the floor of the Synod to
defend themselves, they had met in Rotterdam to determine on a course of action.
They had decided to pursue a course of action which clearly showed their evil
intent -an intent that was not at all for the welfare of the Church. They
decided not to allow themselves to be engaged in any doctrinal discussions
of the questions that were at issue, nor to permit the Synod to examine their
views in the light of Scripture. They decided instead to detain and obstruct
the Synod in every way they possibly could in the hopes that the Synod (especially
the foreign delegates) would weary of it at last and go home without having
decided anything. They were rather confident that if they could delay the
Synod for some time, the ecclesiastical assembly that had been called to try
them would dissolve. And, if they were given some more time to propagate their
views, they were reasonably certain that they could win the day in the Reformed
Churches in the Netherlands so that their position would become the official
position of the Church.

In order
to accomplish this, they decided, on the one hand, to question the legality
of the Synod to try their case. They decided to insist that the meeting of
the Synod was not a Synod at all that possessed any authority to deal with
them, but

that
rather it was a conference between opposing viewpoints that could, at best,
make certain recommendations. On the other hand, they decided to appeal to
the foreign delegates in an attempt to gain their sympathy. The appeal was
to be made on the basis that the Dutch theologians maintained (especially
in the truth of reprobation) an allegedly most cruel, repulsive and God-dishonoring
doctrine. They hoped to convince the foreign delegates that this Synod was
called merely to condemn serious and pious men who stood in the way of such
doctrines. Thus the defense of the heretics was to rest on personal attacks
and on a strategy of delay.

The
Synod chose a very staunch defender of the faith in their president, Johannes
Bogeyman, whom the Arminians tried to get out of the chair. As its two clerks
upon whom fell the mountain of work of recording the minutes and the speeches,
the Synod chose Hommius and Damman.

Almost
immediately, upon being summoned to the Synod, the Arminians began their work
of destroying the Synod if they could. A very learned, suave, capable and
clever man by the name of Episcopius was their spokesman. No sooner had the
Arminians opened their defense and Episcopius arose to pronounce a blessing
upon the entire body. But then they proceeded to put into force their tactics
which they had decided to use. Every form of deceit, every stratagem of double-dealing,
every conceivable argument, every haughty and boastful villainy against the
Synod was used in an attempt to prevent the Synod from entering into the doctrinal
implications of the issue. The Synod attempted again and again, with tremendous
patience, to examine the Arminians' position and hold the views of these men
up to the light of Scripture. But they were never permitted to do it. And,
when the issues became sharply drawn and the heretics had dug out the last
of their tricks to delay the Synod, they flatly refused to submit to Synod's
authority.

All
was finally brought to a close on January 14th, 1619. President Bogeyman
arose and addressed the following words to the Arminians:

"The
foreign delegates are now of the opinion that you are unworthy to appear
before the Synod. You have refused to acknowledge her as your lawful judge
and have maintained that she is your counter-party, you have done everything
according to your own whim; you have refused to answer; you have unjustly
interpreted the indictments. The Synod has treated you mildly; but you have-as
one of the foreign delegates expressed it- `begun and ended with lies.'
With that eulogy we shall let you go. God shall preserve His Word and shall
bless the Synod. In order that she be no longer obstructed, you are sent
away! You are dismissed! Get out"!

The
Arminians left, but not before they made many pious pronouncements. "With
Christ I shall keep silence about all this. God shall judge between me and
this Synod," Episcopius cried. Some appealed to the judgment day and others
left calling the Synod an assembly of the Godless.

As you
can well imagine, the Synod was deeply moved by this dramatic moment, and
stirred by the departure of these men. But, without the lengthy interruptions
and delays of the Armenians, Synod could now get down to work.

The
Synod was first divided into a number of sub-committees including sub-committees
of the foreign delegates which were instructed to meet separately and hand
in written opinions of the five articles which the Armenians had composed
in Gouda several years before. The Armenians, although put out of the Synod's
assemblies, were still permitted to hand in a written defence of their views-which
they did in lengthy documents covering more than 200 pages recorded in the
Acts of the Synod.

By the
22nd of March all the written opinions were in and read by Synod. After
this, another committee of six was appointed to draw up "concept-Canons" which
could be presented to the Synod for adoption. On April 16th the committee
brought to the Synod the first part of their work-the "concept Canons"
I & II. These were adopted by the Synod. The next day after this adoption,
a day of prayer and thanksgiving was proclaimed by the State's representatives,
a day which the Armenians bitterly called "Ahab's prayer day". On April
18th, in its 130th session, the Synod adopted Canons III, IV, and V
To this was added a "Conclusion" which is also included in our Canons found
in the back of the Psalter used in many modern Reformed Churches.

Our
Canons are, as we noticed above, divided into five "Heads of Doctrine".
These five heads of doctrine or chapters are what have become known as
the "Five Points of Calvinism" which are often memorized under the
key-word: "TULIP". To each chapter is added a series of articles in
which various errors, particularly of the Armenians and Pelagians, are condemned.
These five chapters are careful statements and thorough expositions of the
truth of Scripture over against the five articles of the Armenians which they
adopted at their meeting in Gouda.

We do
well to notice briefly what they teach. The first chapter deals with
"Divine Predestination ". In this chapter the truth is developed that
the salvation of God's people and the damnation of the wicked finds its origin
in the eternal decree of God's predestination. According to this decree God
chose some to everlasting life and "leaves the non-elect in his just judgment
to their own wickedness and obduracy." (Article 6). This predestination is
not a decree of God which is based upon what the Armenians called "foreseen
faith and unbelief"; it is rather based only on the sovereign good pleasure
of God. It is called consequently, "Unconditional Election".

The
second chapter deals with "The Death of Christ, and the Redemption
of Man Thereby." The particular teaching of this article is that Christ
died only for His people so that the cross is a realization of the decree
of election. Election and atonement are inseparably united. For the elect
Christ died. And all of salvation is merited by Christ in this work of His
cross. This we have come to call "Limited Atonement."

The
third chapter is combined with the fourth and is entitled, "Of the
Corruption of Man, His Conversion to God, and the Manner Thereof. " Two
main points
are discussed. The first is that the fall of man resulted in his total corruption
so that Adam and all his posterity are completely unable to do or will anything
good or anything that will aid, abet or assist their salvation. Secondly,
it is further emphasized in this article that man's salvation is the fruit
of the irresistible power of God's grace-that regeneration, faith, conversion
and all the blessings of salvation are solely the work of God which He performs
sovereignty in the hearts of His rebellious. (by nature) people in such a
way that God accomplishes His own purpose of salvation. We refer to "Total
Depravity" and "Irresistible Grace".

Finally,
the Canons, in their Fifth Head of Doctrine, develop the truth of the
"Preservation of the Saints. " The Arminians had also denied this.
They taught rather that when God began the work of salvation in the hearts
of His people, this was a work which He finished by His own power until the
elect were brought to final glory. And this work of preservation was made
sure by the decree of election and the work of atonement.

So Arminianism
was defeated in the Netherlands. There are several remarks which we wish to
make by way of conclusion:

1)
The Synod of Dordt also disciplined the Arminian ministers who refused to
subscribe to the Canons. Some 200 ministers were deposed from office in
the Dutch Churches. The foreign delegates took no part in this disciplinary
action since this was purely a national matter of no immediate concern to
the Reformed Churches in other countries. Further, in years following, for
good or for bad, some of these deposed ministers returned again to the bosom
of the Reformed Churches. I say that this could possibly have been bad because
it is doubtful whether they returned in all cases in strict honesty. Some
held to their Arminianism within their hearts even though outwardly they
subscribed to the Canons.

2)
The Synod of Dordt, and the Canons which this Synod composed and adopted,
was a great victory for the Church of Christ. It is a most remarkable demonstration
of the faithfulness of God toward us and the gracious care of Christ for
His Church. Indeed, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

3)
As is always the case with long and bitter struggles in defense of the truth,
this Synod was also instrumental in developing the Reformed faith beyond
the statements of the Reformation. What Luther and Calvin had taught was
now earned forward by their spiritual children. But these developments were
hammered out on the anvil of ecclesiastical strife. So it always is. The
lie is, under God's sovereign control, a means to develop the truth. Dordt
was no exception.

By May
9th, 1619, the great Synod of Dordrecht had finished its sessions; the
delegates had returned to their homes. A great victory had been won in the
Church of Jesus Christ. The truth of the Reformation had triumphed over the
errors of Pelagianism as they had appeared in Arminianism. The fruit of this
great victory was our Canons ....a precious heritage which we treasure
today.

Word and Deed addresses the spiritual and physical needs of people in the developing world in accordance with biblical principles.

Education rooted in a Biblical worldview is pivotal to tranformation and this is what makes EduDeo unique.

Reformed Christian Media is a Internet-based initiative. They produce Christian programming for Ontario which is broadcast in English on the Internet.

An excellent resource for parents to (help) teach the Heidelberg Catechism to their children, for elders who need to read a Catechism sermon in the congregation, for ministers who need to research a Lord’s Day with a view to sermon preparation, etc.

The mission of ARPA Canada is to educate, equip, and encourage Reformed Christians to political action and to bring a biblical perspective to our civil authorities.

The Canadian Christian Business Federation was formed in February, 1984 by a group of Christian business leaders in Southern Ontario who felt the need to meet regularly for mutual support and encouragement, and to deal with the daily challenges of integrating faith and work.

Please Note:SpindleWorks does not have any official connection to any Reformed Churches or organizations.
Content is the sole responsibility of the site maintainer